While Chapters 79 and 80 deal with motion-to and motion-from constructions, respectively, in this chapter we compare the coding of the two kinds of motion constructions: we investigate whether languages use the same strategy or different strategies to express the two opposite orientations. However in this chapter, the goal/source element is not a named place, but a highly frequent place like 'home', 'town', 'village', ‘the market’ or 'the woods'.
All European base languages have different constructions for motion-to and motion-from a place in that different prepositions are used: English to town/from town, French à la maison/de la maison, Portuguese ao mercado/do mercado.
But in APiCS, it is striking to see that many European-based languages do not follow the European pattern and instead mark goal and source identically. In the following example from Krio the preposition na occurs in both contexts, motion-to (1a) and motion-from (1b):
The hearer has to infer the relevant orientation from the meaning of the verb.
Throughout this chapter, the (a) examples show motion-to constructions and the (b) examples show motion-from constructions.
In this feature we distinguish four values:
|Identity and differentiation||2|
In 21 APiCS languages, motion-to and motion-from constructions are coded identically (value 1). There are different ways in which this can happen. First, languages may show no adpositional or case marking in both constructions. One such language is Chinuk Wawa:
Here, both orientations are identically coded: Neither goal nor source tawn 'town' are marked. However, this type is rare in APiCS (another language with this pattern is Mixed Ma'a/Mbugu.).
The much more widespread second subtype of value 1 consists in using the same adposition, both in motion-to and motion-from constructions, as shown in examples (1a and b) from Krio (na 'at, in') and (3a and b) from Martinican Creole (anba 'under'):
Languages which show the same pattern are Haitian Creole, Reunion Creole, Seychelles Creole, Bislama, Tok Pisin, Early Sranan, Saramaccan, Pidgin Hawaiian, and Ternate Chabacano. Interestingly, many languages which show identical preposition marking in motion-to and motion-from contexts also show identical marking in going-to/coming-from named places, this time zero-marking (see Chapters 79 and 80).
There is yet a third possible identity pattern which has been described as “two-fold identity” in previous chapters with an identity value (e.g. Chapter 76). Here, motion-to and motion-from constructions can each be coded by two different strategies, but each of the two strategies can occur in both contexts. Mauritian Creole belongs to this subtype. Here the goal/source lafore 'forest' can either be marked in both contexts by the preposition daṅ 'in', or it can be (left) unmarked.
The vast majority of APiCS languages (43) code motion-to and motion-from differently (value 2). This can be achieved through three coding subtypes. First, a language has two different adpositions or cases to mark motion-to and motion-from. This is the case for instance in Bahamian Creole, Palenquero, and Batavia Creole, where different prepositions are used. Media Lengua shows two different cases, allative and ablative. Sri Lankan Malay has two different postpositions.
The second subtype of value 2 consists of an optional adposition to express motion-to, but a different obligatory adposition to express motion-from. Here we find languages like Creolese, Papiamentu, two Cape Verdean Creole varieties, Kriol, Sri Lanka Portuguese, Kriol, and Singlish. In Singlish (Lim & Ansaldo 2013), for instance, motion-to can be marked by the preposition to or zero, whereas motion-from must be marked by the preposition from.
In a third subtype of value 2, motion-to is never marked, whereas motion-from is always marked by an adposition or a serial verb. Jamaican, Casamancese Creole, Guinea-Bissau Kriyol, Papiá Kristang and Tayo have prepositions (frahn, di, de) for expressing motion-from.
In nine languages there is overlap in the coding of motion-to and motion-from constructions (value 3). In Cameroon Pidgin English (Schröder 2013), for instance, the preposition fo 'in, at, on, to, from' can be used in both orientation contexts, whereas motion-to can additionally be expressed without any marker.
Two languages (Chinese Pidgin English and Louisiana Creole) show an identity and differentiation pattern (value 4). Here, there are at least three different coding patterns for motion-to and motion-from contexts. One pattern occurs in both orientations, whereas another pattern occurs only in motion-to and yet another only in motion-from contexts.
First, when comparing the marking patterns of motion-to and motion-from in APiCS, one can formulate an implicational universal (Fanakalo and Zamboanga Chabacano being the only two out of 75 languages that show some contradicting data):
This asymmetry seems to hold universally across languages and probably has to do with the greater usage frequency of motion-to expressions (Haspelmath 2008b).
Second, we observe an interesting split between English- and French-based creoles: All French-based creoles (except for Tayo) show the identity pattern, whereas the English-based Atlantic creoles mostly show the differentiation pattern. It is only the Surinamese creoles (Early) Sranan and Saramaccan, Trinidad English Creole, and the West African English-based languages which show identical coding or overlap. Other Caribbean English-based creoles like Jamaican, Belizean Creole or Gullah follow the English differentiation pattern. And note that no Portuguese-based creole shows identical coding.
Third, we find substrate effects: In many West African and Bantu languages, which are substrates of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean contact languages, motion-to and motion-from are not overtly marked, but orientation is expressed through the semantics of the verb (see Michaelis 2008; Wälchli & Zúñiga 2006: 292ff). If prepositions are used, they do not refer to orientation (motion-to/motion-from), but to the local region of the located object. Tayo, by contrast, has Oceanic substrates which differentiate motion-to and motion-from prepositions (Bril 2002: 296, 309; Osumi 1995: 80f; Rivierre 1980: 220, 351).